NOGO

I agree that astronomy is a science but it does not use the scientific method. Or rather much of the knowledge which is astronomy was not obtained using the scientific method.

The scientific method demands that one verifies one's hypotheses through experiments.

Bobinius

The hypocrisy is all yours I'm afraid. I kept sustaining the points I've made in reply to your post, but you refuse to accept any evidence. What can I do more? You have preconceived ideas not only about Bruno, but also about Kepler.

I was confusing it, it was probably late.

Using mathematics to impose metaphysical ideas upon the observations. See the solids.

Your way of refuting means stubbornly ignoring the evidence. I already showed how Kepler was Greek in his thinking. I already showed that he held a lot of things he could not prove. I already showed that he relied on Tycho Brahe's observations to formulate the Laws(not on his, as you sustained - and you tried to imply I was saying he never observed anything). I already showed that his path to the Laws was a mixture of mysticism and scientific ideas. I have shown that he held a lot of things that you accused Bruno of, but still you keep your Double Standard.

This is how you pictured him, exaggerating in order to contrast him with Bruno: the rational and mature scientist who 'held little opinions he could not prove'.

Yeah, I googled Roger and I got Francis. The motor must be broken. Isn't it amazing how much I discovered these days googling, not to mention I have to study Medicine all day? But you should know Francis better, he shaped your understanding of the scientific method prior to our last encounter. No one said that natural philosophy started with him, but he was the first to talk systematically about the scientific method.

The debate is centered around the Scientific Revolution. Those natural philosophers are the ones closest to fit the term 'scientist'. You needed a wider term that would fit whatever you want.

Not quite: the expression of God's creation is via geometry. This was Kepler's opinion all the time.

What is not distinct from the three Laws? With this argument you can dismiss whatever Kepler said or thought, and reduce him to his laws. I am not trying to diminish his empirical or scientific approach, just to judge him in the totality of his thinking. We were talking about Kepler vs. Bruno, right? But, this is important in showing Kepler's interpretation of his findings and of Nature in general. He was caught up in teleological interpretations and metaphysical ones, together with his accent on taking observations into account.

We will see. As for your attacks and unsustained 'google argument' you should better deal with the arguments. You had no idea about Kepler's position about Astrology, or how important was Tycho's legacy. You knew some quote taking out of context and on that one you are basing your whole defense. For example.

Lafcadio, you should drop the hypocrisy once and for all: may I remind you that when we debated in the 'To John Powell, strong atheist: Why does God not exist?' in the EoG forum, you came up with some baconian understanding of the scientific method based on induction? Do I need to remind you that I was the one that introduced you to the model you keep presenting?

It is called the Hypothetico - Deductive model of the scientific method, a name you never used. You have no idea about how a prediction is formed within it. You keep making an oversimplificated and naive presentation of it.

Lafcadio: What?? Kepler observed data. Analysed empirical data. Formulated a theory. And predicted astronomical events. This is science.

What theory did he formulate? Ptolemy also predicted astronomical events. Thales too.

You might want to review that thread. So far student Lafcadio you get a C-. Although I am glad that you managed to change your views on the scientific method after our encounter.

Yeah, right, you are in the same position maestro. John of Salisbury is not the same with Bernard de Chartre. Some study you did.

I wasn't talking about approximation, I was talking about understanding. If you are interested in debating some philosophy of science, it takes more than
memory and names.

<edit>Did you even read it? Or did you just browse it in the bookstore? :banghead:

Over the book mentioned? It's a collection of essays, genius. (almost) no physics? Just go and look for 'Cum vad eu lumea?/Teoria relativitatii pe intelesul tuturor', Humanistas 2000, editia a IIa. Then come back.

You did not get it: he did not arrive at his three laws out of thin air. You keep isolating those laws from the rest of his thinking.

First, Einstein did not distrust quantum mechanics, he had difficulties accepting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. He got the Nobel in 1921 for his discoveries supporting Quantum Mechanics, not for Relativity.

You have to understand that his skepticism was justified: we have mountains of evidence, and macro- theories, like Relativity that are contrary to this acceptance. And to this day we are still looking for reconciliation. His skepticism was not irrational as you suggest.

You were WRONG. Get it? The fact that you are so refractary is just confirming what I said: emotionalism. And it was not only the cover: there was also a quote from 1619. I am not going to bother anymore.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE LAWS ARE UNSCIENTIFIC, I SAID THAT THERE WAS NO METHOD.

All I want to do is emphasize that the process that finally drove Kepler to his laws was not totally scientific, and was mixed with mysticism and irrationality. What you want is a fully matured scientific thinking in 1600. Well, keep dreaming. What I want to prove is that Kepler was guilty of a lot of things that you blamed Bruno of. That is the point. Kepler was of course, not a philosopher. But Bruno has his merits too. And he is the one that got sacrificed in this Scientific Revolution. Partially because he suported the idea that got the whole thing moving, partially for his advanced ideas that contradicted the christian dogma.

Ok, a more detaliated analysis of Kepler's achievement:

1. The first question: is the Sun in the center of the World or the Earth?

Kepler decides that the Copernican model is true. Not based on evidence (the evidence finally came when his Laws were confirmed), but on irrational mystical motives. Neoplatonician and Pythagorean.

2. Data: collecting observations. Tycho Brahe. Very precise, using excellent vision and instruments for ~25 years. On a nightly basis, helped by assitants.

3. Second question: the exact orbit of Mars.

Where is the hypothesis? Copernicanism was the theory he already held. Was the hypothesis : Planets move on elliptical orbits with the Sun in one focus? No. He did not formulate this hypothesis in order to verify it then with Brahe's observations.

The next step is of true scientific importance: the choice to trust more Tycho's observations than the theory. If he did this because of an emphasis on empiricism, on evidence or because of his pythagorean motivation of finding the mind of God in the geometry of nature, is debatable. Maybe it was both.

After this, the whole problem is mathematical: it is about finding the trajectory of some objects or points after you calculate their relative positions. Here probably the hardest task was to overcome the dogma of keeping only the perfect shape, the circle, and accomodating the model to the data.

The problem of discovering the orbit relies on the other crucial aspect too: that the Earth is not fixed, it is moving, and the Sun is in the center. Without these preliminary ideas, the orbits are impossible to be determined correctly.

The discovery was a process of trial and error. No method involved. If you would have the task of discovering some orbits on another planet you could not use Kepler's method because there is none.

4. Kepler discovers the correct orbit of Mars. Ok. Is this a hypothesis? No. It is a mathematical derivation from the data. It cannot be use to predict the orbits of the other planets because it is a particular descriptive relation. You cannot make a deductive prediction from knowing the orbit of Mars concerning any other planet. Nothing prevents Mars o. from being elliptical, and the other orbits circular.

5. He had to determine the other orbits individually and see if the relation was verified. Same thing for all the other Laws.

6. These Laws are phenomenally descriptive. They are not physical general laws that tell us how the world works.

7. They don't predict novel facts. Of course they predict the same relation for the planets. But they are not general laws. Unlike Newton's laws for bodies.

8. They have no explanatory power. They are not part of a theory. They don't tell us anything about why the planets move that way. Newton was going to answer that. And Kepler's interpretation is still mystical and teleological. It is not scientific. He still tries to find a divine metaphysical reason for these particular form.

1. He derived the laws from observation by finding mathematical relations. He did not propose explanatory hypotheses.

2. Kuhn meant the emphasis and the privileged place the sun had in Kepler's neoplatonical universe.

No, I looked what Kuhn said about Kepler. (it's not too much).

Keep searching. The idea is that the geometrical harmony which he inserted motivated by Pythagorean ideas was the one. He was really happy that he found that Copernicanism is true, so he sent the Mysterium to Brahe and Galileo.

I already argued above.

Correct. But I am not trying to reduce him to his neoplatonism. Just to emphasise this part too. Why is it ok for Kepler, but not for Bruno?

Ok.

Let's say explanations. Yes, you can see a change in his wording as he
advances, and sometimes it is amazing how can he hold such ideas simultaneously. Eh, you need to be careful how you interpret that search for a force. His mystical view of the sun went well with the facts. It evolved with time though. So, how come isn't this supporting the importance of his metaphysical beliefs in his choice of the model? You seem to be confirming that. If you read La Cena, you will see that Bruno too is offering explanations for Copernicanism: some metaphysical, some geometrical, or based on observations and optics [with mistakes of course] or thought experiments. Use the same standard for both then and i'll subscribe.

But this is the key point: these mystical ideas proved to be supporting correct points. They meant a change in perspective, just like Copernicanism. Galileo had nada, but still supported the model. Let's say it was more parsimonious. But then, Bruno's views on Cosmology are in the same category. They were very profound and I can't help thinking if a scientist would have investigated them were we would be today. Just like Copernicanism.

Now this is a straw man.

I do not focus now. I gave you a quote about his geometry implanted around. His works show scientific approach. I agree. But I am making a criticism to make you see that Bruno's views were not so 'crazy' or useless.

How can you calculate your position or Earth's using a system using only 2 fixed point?

As for the second
His model does not explain anything: it is simply descriptive.

And his model was not that good: Newton had to ignore the mutual attraction of the planets in order to obtain the same orbits.

No shit. You are the one reducing him to the Laws.

What is naturalistic for you?

Ho! You need to spare me of your christian crusade of vindicating the Church for its bull shit.

I knew you were going to ignore the philosophical problems of science by using naturalistic philosophy, and strech the term so anything would fit in it.

End of your assertions. You are still under the spell of your quote. He keeps criticising that Astrology, and talking about the 'good' stuff in Astrology. Why would someone wrote a book about the more certain foundations of a foolish thing? Think goddamit.

Well Gilber was no 'saint'. Those explanations were the rule then.

Well, as far as I remember the only thing was an allusion to the circus. Your reply was about me being stupid, schizophrenic, (do you even know what that is? It has nothing to do with Multiple personality disorder), dyslexic, just like you did with spin and the freedom of speech. Well, we can surely improve this situation.

Yes, and they fall under the fallacy. It's not the case there. Just look for one of the books cited.

Just read about it. Use your original site. It explaines it pretty well.

Please don't. Calm down. What you argue here only confirms what I said.

Bobinius:
To rely on the premise that 'Future evidence will support my conclusion' is to presuppose already that your claim is correct (the point you are trying to prove). The premise is just as unsupported as the conclusion.

Before accusing someone that they don't know Logic, you should remember you are on foreign territory.

You don't know what that means. Just fabulating.

Do you what is a deductive inference?

:wave: There is no universal agreement.

Think about Kepler: he was the only one believing that the orbits were elliptical. If everyone thought they were circular, wasn't he making an argument from pigheadedness?

Bobinius

I wasn't too clear here.

I mean: how can you calculate the position of the Earth using a 3 point system that has 2 moving points?

Buridan

A good advice: Please do not show your ignorance of science by making such a statement, especially as you may be basing your world view on "the scientific model".

What I think you imply by the word "experiment" is not used by all sciences. Science is rather about quantifiable testing of hypotheses, whether through experiments or evaluation of available data, e.g. through statistical methods.

Or you may perhaps have access to some privileged knowledge of what "science" is?

spin

Some good advice: stop the overtly rude responses to other forum members. Such action ultimately ends in offenders being thrown off the list. (That is my learned opinion.)

Some more advice: please try to understand what is being talked about. When a person formulates a theory, there may not be the science to back it up, even though the theory is based on science. Demonstrations of theories may take a long time or may never be performed. Steps may be taken to falsify certain theories without necessarily verifying them, in order to show that the theory is consistent with the state of science.

This is the sort of low rhetoric you can do without.


spin

Buridan

It is rather interesting to observe that my comment on one member's seemingly lack of knowledge in a specific field was not countered by providing more insight about the subject matter under discussion. As you did not defend his statement or use of terms, I take it to imply that you cannot defend them either.

I am sorry to say that this is not my impression of what was being talked about.

1: NOGO made unqualifed assertions about "The Scientific Method" as if this was one and only one thing, and I made some comments and questions on this, in several messages.

2: The issue at hand here (if it is about Kepler or Bruno) is not whether there is "science to back it up" at the moment, it is whether those making assertions have any interest in following various quantifiable methods to "back it up" at all. If they are making attempts - by following more or less the quantifiable Mathematics or Physics of their day - they may be considered as serious Natural Philosophers or Scientists (a far later term), whatever original source there may be for their original assertions. If they do not, they will not qualify to those terms. IMHO Kepler does qualify, along with Copernicus, Galileio and Newton, Bruno does not.

Whenever someone makes an unquailified assertion which goes against the broad view among Philosophers of Science (like Popper, Lakatos, Bauer, Brush, Hull, Laudan, Carnap, Ruse etc.) of what science is, and what kind of sciences there are, and how methods do differ among these, I find it important to ask what the source for that view is. Or we are stuck with just common misperceptions which are rather unhelpfull in a serious discussion.

So, sorry if my question sounded a bit too ironic. It was simply intended as a humorous way of asking for sources, I now understand it does not sound equally humorous to all:Cheeky:

So my question is: Where do these assertions, which make it seem like there is one and only one "Scientific Method", come from?

spin

You make statements which you have insufficient knowledge to make. You can take whatever you like, but take it with a grain of salt.

Mine was a general reaction to your statement whose core was "Science is rather about quantifiable testing of hypotheses", which I found limited.

I wasn't dealing with NOGO when I made my statement.

You're starting to sound like the old Roman who kept ending his speeches "et carthago delenda est."

Bruno came to his conclusions through available knowledge, uniformity and logic. To be able to scientifically demonstrate them was beyond anyone's abilities at the time. Bruno's tools for developing theories were scientific tools.

Sound like drug companies to me.

Do you have problems with the notion that a thinker can form hypotheses which cannot be scientifically verified at the time of formulation?

I didn't say ironic. I merely said low rhetoric.

I see no such intent. Your back-peddling doesn't change your original tone.

I think you are attempting to make too much out of a definite article.


spin

Buridan

Beg your pardon? Which statements? What salt?

For anything to be called "scientific" it has to have quantifiable elements. Else it is or mere opinions, reports or speculations - all of which of course may also be part of science. But as isolated elements they do not make it science as such, if there is such a thing

This is your version of "et carthago delenda est." If Bruno did science, why did not later scientists build on Bruno? Where did he show that he even was interested in doing advanced Geometry and Mathematics at all, like Copernicus before him and Kepler just a few years later?

A statement which does not excactly strengthen your reputation as one well versed in the area of Philosophy of Science.

Not at all. Does anyone else?

Tone and experience of intent is very much in the eye of the beholder. But I do notice that your intent seems very much to focus on my way of expressing things, rather than dealing with the subject matter at hand.

As long as noone answers my questions about what was being meant with "The scientific method", and instead chooses to focus on their feelings around my "intentions", I am inclined to think it is an attempt to make too little out of that definite article.

spin

Please read what is said to you in context. You made this erroneous leap: "As you did not defend his statement or use of terms, I take it to imply that you cannot defend them either." Note the word "take" in your statement which I played upon. You are not a mindreader. So anyone should take your efforts at such with a grain of salt.

You are ignoring the formation of hypotheses.

So you liked this use of the phrase. Your application of it is merely appreciation and of little consequence.

Firstly Bruno's works were placed on the List. Galileo for example could never show dependence on a heretic. Now Bruno, as I said, was not a scientist in the sense that he didn't make observations himself, though this did not stop him from formulating hypotheses based on the science he knew.

You are making artificial separations for a time in which such separations did not exist. Strangely, Bruno attempted to obtain a post at the university in Padua in mathematics, a post awarded to Galileo.

Your citing of a list of names was pretty useless in the context.

Do you have problems with the notion that a thinker can form scientific hypotheses which cannot be scientifically verified at the time of formulation?

It's not that simple, Buridan. Your tone was clearly aggressive in impact, whether it was your intent or not. I think your coyness is merely a cover up.

I have consistently dealt with the topic of Bruno being hypocritically treated by those who would try to assign him to the sidelines of his era. I have also pointed out that you are not dealing with the subject when you employ empty rhetoric for no useful purposes. Your quibbling over a definite article is further example of your having got off track. I have no interest in following you off.

We have come no further from you denying that a person can advocate science without necessarily being a scientist. You must accept that Bruno advocated the copernican view of the solar system. However, through hypothesis extended that system to apply to all stars, using a well established scientific means of uniformity. There is nothing belief driven in this act. Your and Lafcadio's paltry attempts to paint Bruno's efforts in a poor light are simply hypocritical. He was silenced because he supported scientific views, views which were interpreted as theological by his inquisitors.

He had two options ahead of him: 1) recant his knowledge of the world as he had come to understand it, after having taught it wherever he went in Europe, and live imprisoned with that knowledge suppressed for the rest of his days, or 2) defy those who wanted to silence his views. He was in a no-win situation.

History remembers him for his originality of thought, for his thought experiments regarding the universe which ultimately proved correct, for his defiance in the face of corrupt power whose only recourse was to kill the man.

He said to those who were sentencing him to death:

"Perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it."


spin

Buridan

The Great Debate continued:

Ah, humour! :notworthy

Anyone taking (with or without salt) care to read my last messages may just come to a slightly different conclusion.

Indeed, you taught me a new phrase there, and I used it as a way of appreciation:Cheeky:. It is of no consequence that I have been into Roman History for 40 years, and have used that phrase once or thrice through the decades. It is a rather common Latin quotation...

This is a most peculiar excuse. Both Copernicus and Galilei's work was placed on that list. Still, they were used and referred to by many scientists down the centuries, quite the opposite of Bruno. Though I agree that Bruno formulated hypotheses based on the science he knew

Anyone looking at the difference between Bruno and Galilei's use of Mathematics would understand perfectly well why Galilei got the position.

Your joke about those names was extremely usefull in the context, for anyone into Philosophy of Science.

Not at all. Does anyone?

Indeed, I have a lot to cover up :rolling:

So why then do you continue? I find it extremelig illuminating that neither NOBO nor you have taken (salt or not) up my specific question. As you still have not defended his statement or use of terms, I take it to imply that you cannot defend them either. :Cheeky:

I am still missing out on any documentation from you of why he was silenced. So far it looks like nothing more than a belief on your side, as you have had ample opportunity to provide evidence for this the last weeks.

It is also interesting that you no longer bring in your original assertion: "Bruno was a staunch advocate of science" (your message #108). No one disagrees that he advocated the Copernican view, or extended it through the universe. That is a straw man. The issue is quite another: Did Bruno defend Science staunchly, or did he defend his religious philosophy?

As I have no problem with anyone defending their Religious Philosophy (staunchly or not), or using it to form Hypotheses, I don't use that as a negative term. It even looks like that you are using your Philosophy to form Hypotheses about Bruno, though they cannot be scientifically verified at the time of formulation.

To me this is just a matter of putting things into perspective. It is simply to understand the difference between someone striving to do science and someone striving to propagate their religious views. So far I can't see you have made reference to any modern Historian of Science, not to mention any drug company, who agrees with you that Bruno was a staunch advocate of science.

Sorry if I keep asking for documentation (Italian or not) and references. It is just that I am a staunch defender of science.

Ciao:Cheeky: